Do you understand what "disingenuous" means? Do you really think someone is intentionally acting in bad faith?
Barry On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 1:05 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > > On 3/27/23 8:46 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > > On March 27, 2023 3:10:40 PM UTC, Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> It seems to me a history of what did work / didn’t will go into document 4 > >> or the reasoning for document 3. My current preference is for the > >> discussion to not be in the problem statement. My reasoning is that there > >> will be discussion about what didn’t work and why it didn’t work. I expect > >> that there will be quite a bit of back and forth to capture the details of > >> why something didn’t work - including the adaptations that the attackers > >> made to the changes. This, to my mind, is the job of the working group: to > >> look at the current status, discuss where the holes are and if they are > >> protocol holes or if they are best practice / implementation holes. > >> > >> On a more practical point, we have a month to finalize the problem > >> statement. No one has proposed language to include in the problem > >> statement about what has worked and what hasn’t worked. Given the current > >> state of the group, I simply don’t think we have the time to put this into > >> the problem statement and get it out in time. > >> > >> I do think we have the time and space to discuss techniques after the > >> problem statement is done and include it in one of the WG output documents. > >> > > So far, unless I was napping when it happened, we don't have a working > > group draft of the problem statement. > > Exactly. It's rather disingenuous to require people to propose text to a > non-working group document especially since we don't know what is going > to be in a next version since it doesn't have to track the consensus of > the working group. > > Also: it's disingenuous to demand text for something that the scope has > not even been established. It also assumes that we know the answers > which we don't. My post was trying to get some of those answers but it > wasn't enough, and may well have missed many pertinent things since I'm > not an industry insider. The intent of my questions was start an inquiry > into that state that could be used as input. > > Lastly: cutting off debate because of time is bogus. Murray already said > that the milestone dates were fairly arbitrary. Using them as a tool to > get the chair's preferred result is... disingenuous. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list > Ietf-dkim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
